​Similarities and Differences
​
As we near the anniversary of the armistice ending the first world war, the contrast between the termination of that conflict and World War 2 continues to stand out quite starkly. When World War 1 ended in November of 1918, not one allied soldier had yet entered Germany, as all the fighting continued to take place in France and Belgium. Indeed, no German territory had even suffered war damage of any kind.

Yet in 1945, the second world war was only brought to an end once nearly every inch of Germany was controlled by allied forces, and her major cities lay in total ruins.

How is it that in the late summer of 1944, when Germany faced essentially the identical military situation as it had in November of 1918, that a similar end did not then take place? Why did Germany terminate one war when the end was clear, but not the other?

The answer lies in understanding a single individual who had been involved in both conflicts, the first time as a soldier, the second as the military leader and dictator; namely, Adolf Hitler.

Why Hitler Became a Politician
​
One of the great myths inside of Germany that came out of the armistice ending World War 1 was that it represented a 'stab in the back' to an undefeated army by spineless, cowardly politicians. After all, the German army was still occupying foreign soil at the time of the armistice - so how could one say they had been defeated? A question many Germans asked at the time.

But the German military dictator in 1918, General Ludendorff, understood quite clearly at the time that the hand writing was on the wall, and eventual military defeat was just a matter of time. To his credit, he decided to give Germany the opportunity to cut the best deal it could, and also spare the fatherland the horrors of having the war spill into Germany itself.

To do this, Ludendorff brought his political opponents into the German government and invited them to approach the Allied forces with an offer to end the war. In doing so he killed two birds with one stone. First, he brought into government the voices most likely to find a sympathetic ear in the West, and secondly, he avoided being accused at home of being the one who surrendered. "Let them face the music" he sneered. And in doing so, he spared Germany physical destruction, and also saved his own reputation, or what was left of it.

Many soldiers and citizens took the bait. Among them was Adolf Hitler, who wrote in Mein Kampf of his feeling betrayed by these politicians. He considered the formulators of the armistice as nothing more than traitors. So disgusted was he, and so determined to both undo what they had done and prevent it from ever happening again, that he decided to enter the world of post-war German politics. And with that decision began one of the - if not the​ - most infamous political careers in world history.

Never Again a November 1918
​
By August of 1944, Hitler had become the supreme commander of Germany's armed forces, which at that moment faced an almost identical military situation to that of November 1918. No foreign armies had yet entered Germany, but there could be no doubt of the eventual outcome of the war at that point. However, one thing was certain; Adolf Hitler would never allow the same ending to this war as had occurred in the last one. This time he was determined that if Germany was to lose - it would go down fighting to the bitter end. Literally.

To prevent even the possibility of an armistice, Hitler identified the same strata of civilian leaders to whom Ludendorff had turned in 1918 in-order to spare Germany invasion and destruction, only this time instead of asking for their help in forging a peace, he had them all arrested. He was determined that the war would continue, no matter what.

And so it was that on August 22nd 1944 Hitler ordered the roundup and detention of some 5000 former Ministers, mayors, Members of Parliament, political leaders and civic officials of the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic in what was called Operation Thunderstorm. 

Since this initiative was launched just over a month after the notorious July 20th assassination attempt against Hitler, it has often been assumed these arrests were part of the response to that event. But they were entirely unrelated. Operation Thunderstorm would've taken place even if the assassination attempt had not, because it was dictated by the military situation itself.

Among those whom he had incarcerated were both Konrad Adenauer and Kurt Schumacher, who were later to emerge as protagonists in Germany's post Nazi era. Schumacher was shipped off to the Neuengamme concentration camp, where he was liberated in April 1945 by British troops. Adenauer was sent to a labor camp where he was detained for several months, ultimately being released before war's end due to ill health.

It was in this manner that Hitler made good on his vow to never let another November 1918 take place in Germany. And as a result, the war lasted another eight long - extremely bloody - months. In fact, militarily speaking, they were the bloodiest months of the war for Germans themselves. And, of course, the death camp trains continued to roll during all of this time as well.

Hiller had always said that no matter what, he would fight until the bitter end - until five minutes past twelve - as he once put it. And he wouldn't let anyone stop him. He had also promised that if Germany could not win the war, he would shed no tears if it was destroyed; in fact, he would assure it, because it did not deserve to survive if it was , in his estimation, proven an "inferior" nation through military defeat. And by ensuring the continuation of a lost war, Hitler fulfilled those dark promises - in spades.

By the time I first heard of Jean-Michel Basquiat, he'd already been dead for 27 years. Which is kind of strange considering that he was one of the most celebrated black-American artists of the last 50 years - or ever - for that matter.

The irony is that for an artist most known for his insightfully penetrating depictions of race & culture in the USA, from a black perspective,  almost all such celebrations take place in the very confined space of the nearly exclusively white - and elite -  world of modern art. So outside of Manhattan (south of Central Park) and a few kindred cultural enclaves scattered across the country, I doubt that one in a hundred black Americans have heard of him to this day.

Tapped-in Obscurity
The cultural irony of Basquiat extends much deeper, though, since so few have ever been as plugged-in to the dichotomies of America's racial millieu as he, only to see such intuitive brillance leave him increasingly apart from the very world he so clearly illuminated. 

Basquiat got elements of black & white America that usually escape most of the inhabitants of both environments, and by seeing the whole so clearly, effectively separated himself from each of its parts.  His art was a bridge between two very different, yet completely inseparable cultural contexts; the irony is that that very skill prevented him from crossing to either side. 

My discovery of Jean-Michel Basquiat was, fittingly, symbolically ironic, as was his culturally bridging art itself. Half dragged to an exhibition of his work in the multi-cultural Mecca of Toronto by my Québecoise companion, it was there that I discovered this voice from a generation ago that speaks of today and now in ways that are at once stimulating and disturbing. Can it really be true that we have come so far in some respects, yet at the same time, barely moved?

Arrival at Now
In a way I'm glad I discovered him now, and not then. The me of now gets Basquiat in a way the me of then never could've. Only in missing his life entirely was I able to fully appreciate it being lived at all.

In the end, Basquiat's leaving this life so early (he was just 27 when he died in 1988) was both a tradgedy and a blessing. He was one of those gifted in a special way that consumes all which gives it the ability to survive - and in so doing - bequeath's to the rest of us a greater capacity to endure.

Basquiat's was a pure burning flame that was closer to a meteor than a star. And while a meteor's path is traversed in mere moments, for those lucky enough to catch its light, it is as radiant as the center of any galaxy imaginable.

The recent murders of the journalists at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have been condemned by nearly all, and sent the world into a state of shock over such an act of barbarity.

Millions marched across the world to show their sympathy and solidarity with the victims of this horrendous insult to civilization. Yet, at the same time, a worldwide debate has now broken out over whether or not to show either the controversial cartoons that apparently sparked this affront to humanity, or to continue to blur images that some claim are offensive.

Of course, most American media outlets have refused to show the Charlie Hebdo images out of a self-proclaimed adherence to "journalistic standards" rooted in respect.

Shame for some - a proud moment for others
Meanwhile, in France, Montreal, and many other places, the media has shown the cartoons that are the subject of this debate. Not gratuitously - but because they are part of the story. They are news - and the story cannot be honestly covered without showing them. And to me, that equals integrity and a refusal to give in to intimidation from those who would destroy our freedoms.

I can only say that in my opinion, any "news" outlet that does not show this cartoons in their coverage of this vitally important story has abdicated their responsibility as a news organization, and as journalists. They have surrendered to terror and hate. And for them to then say they support the right of Charlie Hebdo - and anyone else - to be free in what they write and publish is pure, undiluted hypocrisy - and more damaging to press freedom than a thousand terrorists.

The 2014 MLB Playoffs are now behind us, and out of the 10 teams that competed for the ultimate prize, the San Francisco Giants emerged as the eventual World Series champs. Does that mean they were the best team?

Marathon - or Sprint?
Baseball is the quintessential summer sport. Summer is supposed to be a time when the pace of life slows down. It's hot in the summer, and moving too fast, doing too much, just isn't very comfortable. Days are longer - and taking one's time is just one of the simple joys  of those long sultry months.

That's why a slow moving game like baseball is perfect for summer. You can go to a game and relax in the hot weather, watching athletes who also take there time - only running (and sweating) occasionally as they basically stand around waiting for something to happen.

And the season itself is long too. Football's NFL plays 14 games in their season - and they're done. Basketball's NBA plays many more - coming in at around 80 games during their season. But major league baseball scoffs at such part-time nonsense by playing 162 games every summer. 

Traditionally, one of the main reasons for this is to determine who is the best team. After all, over the course of 162 games, every team will go through its ups and downs - but the most consistent amongst them will be at the top when all is said and done. It's a marathon. So why do we pick the eventual winner with a sprint?

Old School versus New
Back in the day, there used to be just two leagues: American & National. The two winners of the 162 game marathon were the winners of their respective pennants. No playoffs needed. 162 games settled it conclusively. And while the World Series between the two winners was just 7 games - at least you knew the two best teams were playing. And if who you thought was the best didn't win that series - well - at least you knew one of the two best teams did.

Then came maybe the best pennant race in major league history - the 1962 National League season. The Dodgers and Giants tied at the end with 100 wins each. And for the first time ever, there was an exciting 3 game playoff to determine the champ -  won by the Giants in dramatic fashion. And the genie was out of the bottle. 

So exciting had that playoff series been, that baseball executives (and fans) hoped it would happen again. And then they took steps to assure it. In 1969 each league split into two divisions, and now there was a league playoff series every year. 

The Champs?
Fast forward to 2014, and the trend has continued until now we have three divisions in each league, each with a winner, and two second place teams thrown into the resulting playoffs. That comes to ten playoff contenders for the title of Champs.

So now you have a situation where teams winning 98 games during the regular season must play teams who won considerably less than that before they can advance to the eventual championship round. And since some of these playoffs are a mere 5 games - a couple of off-performances usually means you're done for the year.

So it was that this year, six different teams entered the playoffs with 90 or more wins; each of them at the top of their divisions. A long 162 game schedule had determined each to be the best in their respective slot. And not one of them went on to win the championship.

At the end - they all had to sprint to finish the marathon - and the team with the least wins among them was first to the tape. Did that mean they were the best team? Well, in my opinion - not by a long shot. But 100 years from now when someone looks up who won the 2014 MLB championship, they will see not the 98 game winning LA Angels (of Anaheim), but rather, the 88 game winning San Francisco Giants.

And I have just one thing to say about that outcome.
Woo-Hou !!!!!

I just heard that earlier this summer we lost one of the greatest teachers I've ever known - and today I feel that the world is a diminished place as a result.

Pierre Capretz passed away this April at the age of 89 in Aix-en-Provence, France - and many thousands of his students around the world mourn the loss.

Parlez-vous français?
Learning another language is one of the best things anyone can do to expand their horizons, and sense of common humanity. It is a skill that literally opens new worlds to the learner, and allows one to gain a deepened sense of experience about the world we all share.

When Mr. Capretz first arrived in the United States and gravitated to the profession of language instruction, he was struck by the method of teaching almost universally employed at the time. Grammar based drills and rote memorization of stuffy, unrealistic phrases was a common environment for language learners back in the 50's. 60's and 70's. And because of that approach, many, many students frustratingly gave up attempting to actually communicate with real people - convinced they just didn't have the talent for languages.

Professor Capretz, though, was convinced that this approach to language acquisition was essentially worthless, and set about devising a new system that was immersion based, and focused on real communication from the very first minute of the first class

French in Action
As an professor of French at Yale University, Pierre developed what at the time was an entirely new, and revolutionary approach to helping students learn to really speak and understand French. He developed the first television (or audio-visual) method for teaching language ever produced.

French in Action was a 52 episode class build around a story - a romantic comedy - of a young American in Paris and his French girl friend. Each episode would begin with a 15 - 20 minute scene of the two characters engaged in normal French life situations that methodically developed different language skills as the episodes went along. 

Then, after the dramatized scene with the actors, there would be another 20 minutes with Professor Capretz reviewing what had just been seen by using films. a mime (well, he was French, after all) and various other creative techniques to drive home the language points covered. Eventually a text book, workbook, and audio CDs were developed to accompany the videos - and all together they comprised a full course in learning French.

Au Revoir Professeur
I have been following this course off and on for years, It is still available through the good graces of the Annenberg Foundation, and remains perhaps the best course in French ever created. I went from not speaking a single word of French to a fairly high intermediate level almost entirely because of this class.

I also developed such an warm familiarity for Professeur Capretz in the process, that I almost felt as though he were a member of my family. In reality, I was a member of his.

I will continue with French in Action until I have mastered every lesson. And the fact that anyone, anywhere, can do the same is Professor Capretz' eternal gift to the world. And there are few gifts more valuable than the gift of knowledge - and helping people understand each other.

Merci professeur. Et au revoir.

My latest eBook is out - and if you're headed to Paris this fall, don't leave home without it.

And if you can't swing the hefty cover price (.99¢) at Amazon or SmashWords - stop back by here later this week, and it'll be available for free to bolt visitors - like you.

Meanwhile - here's the back cover description:

"Paris is one of the most popular tourist destinations on earth, and for a very good reason; it's a fascinating and fun place to visit. Each year The City of Light greets close to 30 million foreign tourists, and most of them are headed for a select list of the exact same places. 

As a result, the lines to get into the most popular museums are long, and once inside it can get unbelievably crowded. Not only that, but the most visited parks, sites, and restaurants – along with the streets around them – are simply crammed with foreign tourists these days. And while these are still must see locations, the fact is that the crush of humanity can become a bit overwhelming at times. 

This little book is a guide to some great spots and experiences – all within Paris – that will get you away from the multitude of tourists, and give you a little breathing space to enjoy more of this great city – and enhance your organic contact with a Paris many tourists never see."

In the spring of 1940, what was arguably the world's most advanced outpost of liberal democracy at the time, and the principal guardian of the cultural heritage of the enlightenment, came to an ignominious end at the hands of one of history's most ignoble forces ever - Nazi Germany.  

William L Shirer's The Collapse of the Third Republic recounts how it was that this proud nation went from Europe's strongest power and undisputed victor over Germany a scant 20 years earlier, only to so quickly and totally crumble to the same foe during the early days of World War 2.

Rooted to the Past
Most people's sense of France's defeat in 1940 assumes that there is little more to know than that a superior army defeated an inferior one. Yet as Shirer begins to dig beneath that surface impression and examine the facts in more detail, a much different image begins to emerge.

What Shirer's authoritative account clearly reveals is that the France of 1940 was definitely not that of 1918. The earlier France had been one largely united and enthusiastically supportive of her effort to withstand the onslaught of Imperial Germany. In 1918, the French (for the most part) stood as one in defense of France, and the principles represented by the Republican government entrusted with her defense. But by 1940, this was no longer the case.

Crushed from Within
France had become bitterly divided in the inter-war years over the type of society best suited to guide her coming out of the turbulent period of World War 1. Many still harbored visions of a return of the monarchy which had intermittently held state power since the great revolution of 1789. Others openly sought the adoption of the then ascendant Italian and German authoritarianism that seemed to many in France to be the future of a united Europe.

These social & political currents were combined with a military leadership whose strategic vision of defending France was still rooted in the principles of 1914, not 1940. Shirer demonstrates how France's military forces in 1939 were every bit the equal of Germany's - but the French general's vision of how to use that force lagged far behind that of her aggressive neighbor.

The military mind of Hitler is usually viewed today as he was in 1945, somewhat deranged and delusional. But in 1939, he was wise enough to listen to his young guns - such as Rommel - and adopt their vision of modern war strategies, while France held tight to the views of the aged commanders of twenty years before. The difference between the two approaches would become evident to all during that spring of 1940.

What Shirer's book illustrates in great detail is that it was the combination of internal disorder and rancor, along with an unbreakable attachment to anachronistic military doctrines that created the perfect recipe for disaster and defeat.

A Battle Lost - Not a War
Few are willing to admit it today, but in those dark days after the fall of France in 1940, the overwhelming majority of the French population stood firmly behind the call of Marechal Petain's Vichy government to accept not just military defeat - but national subjugation. But not all French did so.

One voice alone - almost literally - refused to accept the loss of the Battle of France as the end of the war and the struggle for French national independence and democracy. It was the voice of Charles de Gaulle.

And as the defeatist French generals & politicians met in Vichy to snuff out the life of her democratic institutions and bend to the will of Adolf Hitler - one voice of resilient defiance was heard (admittedly by few) declaring that that fight was - indeed - not over.

While virtually none of his harried and humiliated countrymen supported him at that precise moment - the young (by French military standards) tank commander sat in a London radio studio and declared that the war was not lost - and that he would stand with all who shared that view to continue the resistance to the snuffing out of the light of French republicanism and national independence.

At France's darkest hour - one hand held aloft the flame of hope. One voice refused to accept - let alone embrace - darkness. One voice rejected despair, and called for even more resolve.
And though few knew it on that day - it was France's finest hour. Heroism had survived the onslaught.

For quite a few years, one of the most ubiquitous books on the shelves of American homes was William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, his massive tome running over a thousand pages, recounting the history of one of the world's darkest - yet most fascinating - periods.

Those who actually managed to read this captivating and meticulously documented narrative history of Hitler's climb to power (and all the subsequent events right up to the end of the European part of World War Two) were admittedly few, but millions at least knew of the books existence. However, very few ever saw, or even heard of another of his comprehensive descriptions of the events of that time; a story just as enthralling and compelling as that of Nazi Germany, and closely linked to it.

France - 1940
The Collapse of the Third Republic was published in 1969, and it depicts the long and detailed history of the French governmental system established in the aftermath of the 1871 loss of a war to Germany, and that government's eventual collapse in 1940 after suffering a more disasterous repeat of that earlier catastrophe. Yet, while it is little known outside of academic circles in the USA, for those willing to invest the time and energy to work their way through its 948 pages, this magnificent book is more exciting and intriguing than even the best historical fiction, and leaves the reader with an account of modern French history up to 1940 that is unequalled in any other single volume of which I am aware.

Subtitled ...An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940, it is the telling of one of those events in world history which most well read people think they already know a good deal about, and wind-up stunned at the end to realize how little they actually understood. This book is not only absolutely riveting, but will utterly transform most people's view of how it was that France lost to Germany in 1940, and wound-up an occupied country for the next four years.

A Man of His Time
What makes this book particularly engaging is that Shirer himself was a close first-hand witness to most of the key events from 1925 on. Mr. Shirer was not only the European news correspondent for several news agencies during those turbulent years, but he is one of those rare Americans who actually made himself fluent in all of the languages of the countries he reported on.

First stationed in Paris, and later in Berlin, his special access to all of the key figures and events afforded by his press credentials and language skills results in a telling of events that is rich with the type of nuance no outside observer can ever hope to convey. Yet the work itself - like its more famous counterpart on Germany - is extensively and meticulously documented. Everything here is carefully supported by original source documents and first hand knowledge that convey the highest degree of fidelity to historical integrity.

In Part 2 of this post I will outline the key events and conclusions conveyed in Shirer's history of how France, with an army every bit the equal of Nazi Germany's, was so quickly and totally crushed in the spring of 1940. It is a surprising tale of arrogance, ignorance, betrayal - and ultimately heroic redemption.

August 25th will mark the 70th anniversary of the Liberation of Paris during WWII. On that day, in a small office at the Gare Montparnasse, the German military commander of Paris, Dietrich Von Choltitz, signed the official surrender of his forces and spared Paris the street by street fighting that had completely destroyed the city of Caen in Normandy just a few weeks earlier.

But the surrender came at a price. Weeks of armed resistance by the people of Paris preceded the capitulation. Somewhere between 1000 and 1500 Parisians were killed in the fighting - and roughly an equal number of German soldiers. But it could've been much worse. 

Von Choltitz was a veteran of the Eastern Front - and was the commanding General at the siege of Sebastopol years earlier. During that battle the city had indeed been methodically reduced to rubble - and Von Choltitz had been brought to Paris by Hitler for the expressed purpose of repeating that experience should the Allies break-out of the Normandy battle area.

An Unlikely Hero Emerges
Once that breakout did occur in late July, Hitler began pressuring Von Choltitz to carry-out the systematic destruction of the 'City of Light', including the massacre of those who might dare to resist. 

But Von Choltitz had recently met face to face with Hitler in his East Prussian headquarters - and had left that meeting convinced that Hitler had become deranged and delusional. Von Choltitz knew the war was lost - and decided to implement Hitler's plan as slowly as possible in hopes that the Allied army would arrive before he was forced to fully carry out his destructive orders.

Things began to change rapidly, though, as the resistance organizations of Paris - most notably the Communists - initiated an armed uprising to take control of the city. Unbeknownst to the resistance leaders, Allied forces commanding General Eisenhower had already decided to bypass Paris after the Normandy breakout in-order to avoid getting bogged down in the street fighting he feared would delay their move toward Germany. 

However, the uprising by the citizens of Paris forced him to divert forces to the city to save it from a massive German counter-attack there, and the resultant destruction of the city.

Paris Saved
The uprising began on the 19th of August - and raged until Eisenhower released a French Armored division to enter the city on August 25th, giving the citizens the force they needed to crush the Germans. Fighting continued for several days - but in the end Von Choltitz chose to terminate the fight, and not submit Paris to the wishes of Hitler. 

As he walked through the Gare Montparnasse that day as a prisoner, he was spat upon by hundreds of angry Parisians. But little did they know that if not for his refusal to zealously follow Hitler's orders - Paris would've already been in ruins - and many, many thousands of her citizens would now be dead.

Today, you can still see evidence of the resistance battles all around Paris. Placards mark spots where resistance fighters fell - and many bullet scarred walls have been left as they were to serve as reminders of the bravery displayed during those August days so long ago. As you stare at those bullet-riddled walls, it seems as though the battle just ended, and you're compelled to stop for a moment - reflective and thoughtful.
As well we all should be.

I just published my latest eBook, this one on the ancient practice of fasting. I got the idea for this eBook from a posting I wrote a while back about my own experience with fasting. 

Now I've taken that idea and dramatically expanded it into a nice little overview of everything someone curious about this practice might want to know before jumping in themselves.

 I am working on getting this site set-up so that you can buy my eBooks directly from me, but for the time being you can pick one up at both Amazon.com and at Smashwords. And if you signup for email updates, I'll keep you in the loop on all my future releases.

Here's a blip from the book description as an fyi.

Fasting is gaining in popularity as a technique for both weight loss and improving overall health. This is a refreshing new overview of the ancient practice that explores both the philosophy behind it, and recent scientific research into how and why it works to positively impact well-being. This book offers a clear, concise, and comprehensive introduction to both the practice & theory of fasting.

Hope you enjoy it.